The state giveth, and the state taketh away. Or at least Gov. Jerry Brown is suggesting California taketh away its new transitional kindergarten program, as the state seeks to close yet another multi-billion dollar deficit. His proposal has unsurprisingly angered many early childhood education advocates. But is cutting transitional kindergarten—a hybrid preschool-kindergarten program for children who just miss the kindergarten cutoff date—really such a terrible thing?

California introduced transitional kindergarten as part of the 2010 Kindergarten Readiness Act, a bill that also moved the state’s kindergarten cut-off date from December 2—one of the latest in the country—to September 1. Moving up the cut-off date was initially touted as a way to save the state money ($700 million per year once fully implemented), since fewer children would be in kindergarten each year. Half of the savings would have been redirected to pay for an expansion of state preschool, while the other half would have returned to the state’s hemorrhaging general fund.

But during the sausage-making negotiations, transitional kindergarten made its way into the bill. Transitional kindergarten provides an extra year of preparation for children turning five between September 2 and December 2—children who may or may not be ready for kindergarten. (As a side note, I am an October baby and started kindergarten at age 4. Despite some of the horror stories you might read about us “young fives,” I did just fine in school. But I digress.) Under the bill that ultimately passed, all the savings from the cut-off change were instead redirected to paying for transitional kindergarten, which by some estimates may cost twice as much as state preschool. The requirement that transitional kindergarten teachers, unlike preschool teachers, be credentialed contributes substantially to this cost differential.

Transitional kindergarten proponents seem to have two main arguments against Brown’s proposal to eliminate the new program. For one, they contend, transitional kindergarten only requires funds that would have been spent on the children anyway—if they were in kindergarten instead. That may be true, but as the Los Angeles Timespointed out, the flat spending is only temporary: today’s transitional kindergarteners will be in the K-12 (or TK-12) school system an additional year. The state will have to pay for 14 years of school for each student who starts in transitional kindergarten, instead of the usual 13.

The second frequent argument against Brown’s plan is that transitional kindergarten will “help level the playing field for low-income and disadvantaged students by giving them an extra year of preparation.” While transitional kindergarten would certainly benefit many low-income children, it would also enroll plenty of well-to-do children whose parents can afford an extra year of private preschool and who will likely be school-ready with or without the new program.

If policymakers really want to better prepare low-income children for kindergarten, they should invest in means-tested early learning programs, like the California State Preschool Program, rather than a program that uses age to determine eligibility. By definition, these means-tested programs are better targeted at disadvantaged children. And the state preschool program is much cheaper. As a result, the same amount of money, or even less, could benefit more children. State preschool is in dire need of the funds: like other state programs, it too has suffered from cuts. It has a waiting list of 83,000 students and serves just 40 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds.

I can understand why early learning advocates are protesting Brown’s proposal. Early childhood education in California is underfunded, and advocates have to take what victories they can get. Kids who must wait another year for kindergarten without access to high-quality preschool or transitional kindergarten stand to lose the most. But a better option exists: California could eliminate transitional kindergarten, invest half the savings in state preschool, and still prepare more disadvantaged children for kindergarten—because preschool costs are lower and because no funds would be spent unnecessarily on upper-income children. So perhaps this is an instance where the state is right to taketh away—as long as it giveth some of the savings to another, more worthy program.

Update: It looks like transitional kindergarten was spared the ax, at least for now. On Tuesday, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance rejected Gov. Brown’s proposal to eliminate the program. It’ll be interesting to see what happens as the deadline for the full state budget approaches in July and legislators are forced to make some tough decisions (and/or resort to budget gimmicks).

Related Posts

The legislature should have just left the K cutoff as December 2nd, allowing parents the freedom to decide whether to start their fall birthday kids at not-quite-5 or to "redshirt" them for a year. I have two fall birthday kids, an October girl who started younger and is now doing great in 4th grade, and a November boy who needed the "redshirting". This whole TK thing is a waste of money because it pays for an extra year of schooling whether or not the child actually needs it.

I'm pleased that the California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance voted last week to reject Gov. Brown’s proposal to scrap transitional kindergarten, demonstrating that they see the fiscal and educational importance of TK for our state.
Before the vote, Assemblymember Julia Brownley, Chairwoman of the California State Assembly Committee on Education, noted the reality of the situation in California is that “this TK train has already left the station. Parents are planning on it, schools are planning on it. There has already been an investment made. We would be just pulling the rug out from under these efforts that have already been happening at school sites. Parents are going to be left high and dry.”
It is important to note that TK is already in place for this fall under current law. Schools and parents may lose money now, and never have the chance to see the substantial returns, if TK is cut.

guest bloggerMarch 13, 2012 at 2:18 pm

Ms. Atkin,
Thank you for your comment. I am sympathetic to many of your arguments, particularly the point you make about the state preschool infrastructure. However, I don’t think we can dismiss the issue of additional costs down the road. California—and many other states—continually make the mistake of pushing costs into the future. Then, later policymakers must make tough decisions to either raise revenue to cover those extra costs, or they must make cuts. The crises facing pension systems in California and other states are an example of the severe consequences of this kind of kick-the-can-down-the-road policymaking.
I don’t disagree that there is a high return-on-investment for funding early childhood education. But given California’s current budget situation, I think the state would get more bang for its buck if it replaced TK with a less-expensive expansion of state preschool—even in light of the concerns you raised about state preschool. It’s not a perfect solution, but unfortunately, I don’t think California is in a position to pursue perfection right now.
-Jennie Herriot-Hatfield

We strongly disagree with your blog post. Cutting transitional kindergarten (TK) would deny up to 125,000 children the right to kindergarten and is a lose-lose-lose that will hurt kids, parents and schools. That’s why here in California, TK has garnered support from a coalition of policymakers, educators, families and business and civic leaders. TK is the most sensible option for California as the funding follows the same students who would have been in kindergarten under the old entry date cutoff. For the next thirteen years, California will not see any additional costs. This allows ample time to analyze the advantages of TK.
Moreover, the entire state will benefit from the savings generated by TK. According to former dean and professor at Stanford University School of Education Deborah Stipek (whose TK editorial can be read on www.preschoolcalifornia.org/stipek), the state expects to see the eventual cost returned many times over through cost savings, as fewer children will be placed in special education and retained in later grades. At the same time, California will also be strengthened by a well-educated workforce. Transitional kindergarten also allows up to 5,000 teachers to maintain their jobs and gives parents who cannot afford private programs a chance to work. TK will give California the economic boost it needs.
Regarding transferring TK funding into the State Preschool Program, as mentioned in the blog, there are already more than 80,000 students on the waiting list for preschool. In addition, as advocates in California have seen, there is no guarantee that more children would be served in preschool because many low-income communities have no existing state preschool program. With no built-in infrastructure, how can California afford to build new facilities during this economic downturn? TK, however, would exist in public schools, where spaces already exist for the youngest schoolchildren. Finally, state preschool is funded at less than half the level than public school. We cannot ask school districts to serve the same children for half the money.
TK is a major opportunity for the entire state of California, allowing us to offer equal opportunity to all of our youngest learners. It's a winning solution for our children and our state economy.